Right 1: X is not a breach of truce, therefore doesn't invalidate protected-status

Right 2: X is a breach of truce, therefore invalidates protected-status

Non Rights are Rights

What happens when someone claims you never have a right to X? Typically, what occurs is this person is claiming a right to the inverse of X.

For example, when someone claims property rights they are claiming …

"exclusive control of use is not a breach of truce" (right 1)

"violation of property is a breach of truce" (right 2)

Alternatively, if someone claims there is never a right to property, they are claiming…

"property violations are not a breach of truce" (right 1)

"exclusive control is a breach of truce" (right 2)

Typically in the pursuit of arguing against a right, one is actually arguing for a right.

Alternatively

Alternatives to asserting a right do exist. While not exhaustive, here are a few alternative approaches:

Agnostic : "I have yet to see adequate evidence or arguments for either X or not-X"

Irrelevance : "X and not-X are not relevant to the truce"

Distraction : "X distracts from the real issue Y"

The difficulty with both the distraction, and the irrelevance approaches is that it leaves unresolved the conflict surrounding X and not-X, unless the solution to Y helps mediate X and not-X. For example, if X is "first come, first serve", the sollution might come in the form of Y as "property theory."

Provision Rights

Often in politics, one will find persons claiming a 'right' to healthcare or some other provision. In short:

Right 3: *An individual is entitled to the provision of X*

The purpose for mentioning entitlement to provisions is to avoid conflation with the 'rights' in this article, however that is an entirely separate subject and will be ignored. in this article.